Recommendation on Controlling Grade Inflation

at the University of Delaware

 

 

Prepared by the Senate Ad-Hoc Committee on Grade Inflation

April 2005

 

 

 

 

Donald Lehman, Chair

Gabriele Bauer

Jan Blits

Araya Debessay

John Dohms

Leslie Goldstein

Paul Head

Anette Karlsson

Lidia Rejto

Rivers Singleton

 

In the fall of 2003, the Faculty Senate formed an ad hoc committee to look at undergraduate grade distribution at the University of Delaware. In the spring of 2004, that Committee reported to the Faculty Senate that grade inflation had occurred at the University during the period studied, 1987 through 2002. Although the committee made several recommendations, only one was approved by the Faculty Senate, the recommendation defining the letter grades awarded. The Faculty Senate, however, wanted additional recommendations to help control grade inflation. The ad hoc committee was reformed winter, 2004 and charged with making recommendations for controlling grade inflation.

 

To gather comments from the University community, the Committee held three open hearings and developed a web survey. The qualitative survey data were analyzed via content analysis to identify main themes (see Appendix). Based upon comments from these forums and a review of the literature, the committee makes the following recommendations.

 

1.      Accountability. Of the comments received, accountability was the second-most cited concern or area of recommendation. High grades may be a sign of effective teaching, but they also may be a sign and even a cause of poor teaching, since they may lower the standards and hence the incentives for students' performance. The committee therefore recommends that grade distribution (along with syllabi, course evaluations, etc.) be part of the Chairs' annual appraisal of their faculty members' accomplishments in teaching. Chairs receive the grade distribution for all courses in their department at the end of each semester. If a faculty member's grades are clustered near the top of the scale or the bottom, the Chair should ask the faculty member to explain why. Deans, likewise, should do the same with Chairs. Faculty members may have good reason for giving many high or low grades, but the burden should be on them to explain why, if they do so. We recommend that departments adopt accountability as part of the faculty’s annual appraisal.

2.      Transparency. While virtually no unit at the University seems unaffected by grade inflation, some units seem more affected than others. The committee therefore recommends that grade distribution patterns for all units across the University be made public annually. The Committee expects that releasing this information would foster department discussions of grading practices.

3.      Course Evaluations. In the content analysis of comments, course evaluations were most frequently mentioned. Many faculty believe that higher grades result in more favorable course evaluations. Since course evaluations are used for faculty annual appraisals and promotion and tenure dossiers, faculty could be reluctant to grade rigorously in their courses. The Committee recommends that the Faculty Senate form an ad hoc committee to investigate how teaching effectiveness is assessed at the University of Delaware and the role of course evaluations in faculty annual appraisals and promotion and tenure dossiers.

4.      Other Issues.  We recommend that the life of the ad hoc Committee on Grade Inflation be extended. More time is needed to examine a number of topics brought forth at the open hearings and in the web survey. These topics include 1) adding information to student transcripts, for example the mean or median grades of the courses that a student completed at the University of Delaware, median grade given in a course, and course enrollment; 2) increasing or reducing pass/fail grades; 3) implementing standardized department exams for course sections taught by different faculty; 4) and improving syllabi to better inform students about standards for grading.

Background Information

 

A number of faculty perceive a relationship between student course evaluations and instructor grading leniency. That is, instructors give higher grades than student achievement warrants or lower their standards so that students give instructors higher evaluations of their teaching in return. Course evaluations are a complex, extensively researched topic in higher education. Research studies do not provide convincing evidence for the conclusion that student evaluations of courses are influenced by the grades that students expect to receive from instructors (Arreola, 1995, Centra, 2003; Franklin et al, 1991; Theall, 2001). Caveat: These findings are based on the assumed use of professionally developed, valid, and reliable course evaluation forms. (Arreola, 1995). At the University of Delaware, most departments do not currently use such evaluation instruments.

 

Experts caution against the over interpretation of student course evaluations.  Course evaluations constitute only one source of data about teaching, i.e., student perception data.  Experts recommend that course evaluations be used in combination with multiple data sources (e.g., course materials, products of student work, peer observation, instructor self-evaluation) if one wishes to evaluate all elements of university teaching (Arreola, 1995; Cashin, 1988; Theall, 2001).

 

References

 

Arreola, R. (1995). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system. Bolton, MA: Anker.

 

Cashin, W. (1988). Student ratings of teaching: A summary of the research. IDEA Paper, no. 20. Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center.

 

Centra, J. 2003). Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher grades and less course work? Research in Higher Education, 44(5), pp. 495-518.

 

Franklin, J. et al. (1991). Grade inflation and student ratings: A closer look. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. 

 

Theall, M. et al. (2001). The student ratings debate: Are they valid? How can we best use them? New directions for institutional research, no. 109. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Appendix

 

Below is a summary of responses to a confidential and anonymous online survey[1] that sought recommendations from the University of Delaware community for reducing grade inflation.  The responses were collected during the period March 1 – March 14, 2005.  A total of 55 respondents, all faculty members, answered the following question: “What are your recommendations for reducing grade inflation at the University?”  Table 1 presents a summary of the main themes (in bold) and subthemes (in italics) that emerged from the qualitative data. [2]  The table is organized according to the frequency of the main themes.

Items that were also discussed during the Open Hearings are marked with an asterisk (*).

Table 1. Summary of Recommendations for Reducing Grade Inflation (N=55)

 

Recommendations

Frequency of responses

 

 

Reduce conflicts of interest

 

Use of end-of-term course evaluations impacts grading practices and thus encourages grade

inflation

  22 *

Recommendations:

 

 

 

Use other means besides course evaluations, to evaluate teaching effectiveness (e.g., peer observations, course materials, student work).  Course evaluations should not be used as the primary source of information for personnel decisions, such as annual review, P&T process. 

3

 

 

Provide information in the teaching dossier about grading practices and grade distribution.

2

 

 

Include items that measure what / how much students learned in a course.

2

 

 

Encourage departmental committees to re-assess their course evaluation forms.  In particular, limit the use of high-inference questions that ask for students’ subjective judgment on teacher effectiveness, in favor of low-inference questions that collect information on objectively measurable aspects of teaching (e.g., frequency of soliciting student questions, availability to students, giving real-world examples, providing constructive feedback on assignments).

2

 

 

Students as consumers

  14 *

Students view themselves and are perceived as ‘consumers,’ with the University as the ‘service provider’ and education as the ‘product.’  Students feel entitled to passing grades (e.g., in a business model, why would I pay for a failing grade?)

 

 

 

Accountability

 

Oversight at department level

  15 *

Review grading practices across courses in the department and discuss on a regular basis at department meetings.

One department has set up a committee to develop guidelines on grade distributions in courses.

    5 *

 

 

Encourage faculty to use the full spectrum of grades and make C the average course grade (i.e., grades should not be top heavy given a typical distribution).  This recommendation needs to be enforced with University policy.

Concern: Should this recommendation be implemented then faculty need the full support of the administration.  Faculty should not be afraid of repercussions from colleagues, administration, parents for failing students.  The potential of lawsuits for less than passing grades concerns some faculty.

    5 *

 

 

Enforce consistent grading across different sections of the same course taught by different instructors, especially if course serves as prerequisite.

    2 *

 

 

Educational objectives of courses need to be considered, e.g., writing as a process.  For example, in courses where students need to revise drafts of written work, improved quality in writing is expected, translating into larger number of higher grades.

    2 *

 

 

Do not offer students opportunities for ‘extra credit’ after the course has ended.

1

 

 

Oversight at college level

3

Establish oversight committee to review faculty grade record.

 

 

 

Support for implementation of good teaching practice

 

At the department level, encourage faculty to include clear grading standards, clear description of assignments in their syllabi.  Students need to be clear as to what is expected of them and what constitutes poor, average and excellent work.

    8 *

 

 

Offer faculty support and resources focused on grading practices, nature of assignments, assessment tools (e.g., rubrics), and syllabus design (e.g., explicit grading policies and criteria).  May occur at the department level.

    3 *

 

 

Have senior department members mentor junior colleagues on grading practices, assignments, syllabus design.

1

 

 

Transparency of grading practices, grades given

 

 

 

Distribute grade distribution report that chairs receive to all faculty in the department to encourage and stimulate department discussion on regular basis.

    2 *

 

 

Public relations press releases need to emphasize academic rigor at UD.  Make it clear that an A at UD worth more than an A at other universities in the area. 

Several students who attended the Open Hearings felt strongly that, if grading standards were changed, PR concerning the meaning of this change was critical.

    2  *

 

 

Make University standards explicit at the departmental level.  Develop shared guidelines for grading practices, describe with constitutes A level, B level performance.

3

 

 

Continue to gather data on grade distributions and publicize them by department.

2

 

 

Change current grading scale

 

Convert letter grades to numerical grades.

4

 

 

Switch from the +/- system to single grades.

3

 

 

Use different grading scales for different types of courses (e.g., P/F scale for practicum type courses).

2

 

 

Educate constituents on different aspects of the issue

 

Educate students on the academic nature of the university.  Address the difference in level of academic work expected, and thus difference in grading criteria, between high school and university.  Students typically have expectations of passing grades if they 'try hard' and are surprised when effort does not translate into the expected grade.

    2 *

 

 

Educate students of the real meaning of different grades and on what is or is not appropriate behavior regarding challenging or "negotiating" grades with a professor.

3

 

 

Educate faculty, administration, students and families about the consequences of grade inflation. 

1

 

 

Add to student transcript

 

Indicate average GPA in all classes that a student took.  List next to GPA.

    2 *

 

 

Establish a University system in which the final transcript shows student ranking in class

2

 

 

 

Source: Online survey responses and discussion at Open Hearings, March 2005.

 


[2] Content analysis was employed to identify recurring, main thematic patterns in the participants’ responses.  Inter-rater reliability was established by working independently with the transcripts, by comparing emerging themes, and by identifying and clarifying points of ambiguity.  It was also ensured that the main themes were plausible given the participants' comments from which they emerged.  Selected comments were included to illustrate certain themes.  The data were reported as group data; no participants were identified.  Faculty participated voluntarily, no random selection occurred.